UK Transition Altitude 18,000ft
 

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/2257/20120...onDocument.pdf

What are the thoughts - good or bad idea?

Fan in some respects, but not others.

I imagine freq congestion is going to soar as repetitive Readbacks of the QNH, and large altitude clearances are going to get in the way of controlling. But there will be less chance of screwing up a sim check due forgetting to set QNH on a single engine!

Time will tell

Mods: already a thread running in Flight Deck Forums.

Chevron - agreed, but as an ATCO I tend to only read this forum. Also I would have thought that other ATCOs would like to talk about this subject.

We have a lot of USA ATCOs reading this, who can contribute from their side, where this is the norm.

I can imagine some flights/airspaces which presently cruise/use FL180 / FL190 in the UK may have issues.

Mods - please keep this open for valid ATC comment, however if common consensus is this thread is not required, then please delete it.

It's duplicated in Private Flying too. I think it would be beneficial to merge all three into one so we can all see the others' views.

Neptune262 - NATS have been working on this for 2 years now including the implementation problems including the likelihood that the Irish will be the only FIR to transition at the same time. It is coming in like it or not, and eventually it will be the whole of Europe using the same TA. Shame it isn't the same as the Americans use to avoid any more confusion after a long transatlantic flight....... :ugh:

My thoughts, its a not a great idea.

It has some merits, but the thought processes about what they are trying to acheive are all wrong, and as such its going to cost ATC providers (certainly in the UK) a small fortune to implement. The same end result is acheivable without mass airspace change, and hence at a much lower cost. As usual though, those high up don't listen to anything from those who actually work aircraft, and who are best positioned to comment on such things.

It seems like they have seen a solution and are too blind to consider that there are much better ones out there.

i have worked in UK 3000ft and then 6000ft (CTR/A only) and now work in DXB where TA is 13000ft and TL FL150, higher the better for an Approach radar controller, every one on same setting. 2000ft is a good buffer which over here works fine but could occasionly not work in UK, but would reduce thinking/working out?

I'm not convinced....
 

I'm not sure if this is the correct thing to do. The whole idea is that the aircraft can climb to a higher altitude under the stacks and therefore get higher quicker and save on fuel. The problem is that less aircraft will hold close in which then means that inbounds will hold further out and cause delays for outbounds from other countries (EHAM/EBBR/etc) because we cannot accomodate the extra traffic coz we are holding enroute.
I'm not against it but there are so many problems to resolve and i'm sure it will be introduced in a workable format that isn't entirely "safe".
The amount of RT will go through the roof not to mention the new phraseology for the guys/girls in Area control.
Aircraft that cruise at FL180/190.....well they will not be able to cruise at those levels anymore and the majority of UK airspace, there is a few airspace divisions at those levels which means that there will be more aircraft level capped.....i mean, is it really worth the extra fuel and delays to get aircraft off the deck quicker to save.......as the title states......i'm not entirely convinced (yet).

"The whole idea is that the aircraft can climb to a higher altitude under the stacks and therefore get higher quicker and save on fuel."
What??

It seems possible that someone cruising at FL180, (sorry 18,000 ft), from EGHI to EGPF, may have to set about 6 different QNH values.
This is like the introduction of ORCAM, only in reverse. :uhoh:
At least the a/c won't hit Mont Blanc. :ok:

Can someone tell me any benefit? I should have thought a single altimeter change on arrival and a single altimeter change on departure was a good idea. Pilots often complain about workload so what happens when they have half a dozen pressure changes to cope with?

If this was part of a push for a world-wide standard, then it would perhaps be a good idea. Seven thousand feet being mistaken for ten thousand feet on the R/T is one of the many phraseology pitfalls. For my own peace of mind I find myself double stating all 5 figure altitudes ("climb to one-two, twelve thousand feet"). I do agree with 10 DME ARC though, having a transition layer of 1500 feet plus takes the mental gymnastics out of work things out when the pressure is low.

The long term plan for the london TMA is to move the stacks further away from the airports.

The outbounds will get an unrestricted climb to at least 10,000ft. Having a TA of 18,000ft means there are more levels available for departures, especially at airports that are close together. Thus crossing tracks will be at 7/8/9 thousand feet instead of 3/4 and it should mean all airports will have freeflow on deaprtures as more levels can be issued on SIDS.

All european countries are keen on the change except the FRENCH, and it was origionally their idea!!!!

I am sure Area controllers are intelligent and sharp enough to work in altitudes aswell as FL, after all the TMA have been doing it for years!!!!

Most pilots will have one pressure setting to change, if you never get above the transition altitude then you may need to change, but a differential of 5hpa is considered to be irrelevant for enroute flight; so you actually only need to change when the pressure setting is greater than 5hpa from the original setting, you get aerodrome QNH from approach/tower/atis at destination. In Oz we use 'area QNHs' these are geographic areas of a couple hundred by couple of hundred miles. Sometimes there are multiple area QNH's for a particular QNH area, such as when a deep pressure front or tight low pressure system moves through. These are issued in a similar format to sigmets and are easy to read.

Personally I think it's a good thing to have a consistent base whatever you pick, FL180, is a good start and probably will help harmonize another aviation quirk. I Wonder if Oz will head that way too?

Wun Zero Thousand = A100. It is never confused with A070...

Or ideally ensure they are never used routinely and start applying speed restrictions and prepare for CDA many hundreds of miles out.

Continuous climb gives you significantly more environmental benefits then CDAs, so the airspace will be set up to facilitate it.

Unfortunately, many hundreds of miles out puts you in France, Germany, Holland or Belgium, and getting them to start the LL APC sequencing is generally met with "non".

FAB ulous.

As someone who works Area in the UK, I think it's amazingly stupid. Given the amount of points that we have introduced to allow level by restrictions without a distance before a certain point, e.g. level BEDEK instead of 40 before OCK, and the number of airlines reporting their STAR on first contact to reduce RT congestion, I fail to see how telling every aircraft the QNH will help matters.

Given that our radars can only show flight levels, i.e. something at 6000 ft might well show 6,200 on the radar isn't going to help either, unless some clever sod has thought about how to filter that.

I can't see the benefit, I know a few American carriers report climbing/descending to an altitude, but they are so few and far between and it only takes a second to clarify.

As far as I can see, it's someone in an office somewhere who is trying to keep themselves in a job, god knows there's enough of them knocking about in aviation